The Boston Globe announcement that it will charge people to read its newspaper online, but will still allow free access to its portal at Boston.com is a surprise to me. In case you missed it, the Globe (owned by the the New York Times Co. ) has decided to launch this strategy in the second half of 2011. Subscribers to the Globe’s print version will have free access to the new BostonGlobe.com. Online-only subscription fees have not been announced yet.
There are several problems with this strategy. The first is that pay-for-online-news has been tried and it has not been a hit. London’s The Times lost 66% of its audience when it went behind a paywall.
The biggest problem the Globe faces with this bifurcated strategy is this: Boston.com publishes current news. This means you can either pay for yesterday’s news or get today’s news for free. Another problem? Once you’re behind a paywall, forget people recommending your stories to friends. This is the opposite of a social media strategy.
The Globe will, no doubt, argue that the information in its paper won’t be duplicated on Boston.com. It will keep its columnists behind the paywall. It will have stories that don’t appear on Boston.com. But is that enough to attract paying subscribers? Boston.com does a very good job covering breaking news. It has an excellent sports section. It doesn’t exactly omit the news. Even if BostonGlobe.com brings in some money, it won’t nearly make up for the shortfall the newspaper faces from its loss of advertising and circulation.
It has been suggested that this strategy is preparing the Globe for the demise of its print edition and the beefing-up of its online/mobile strategy. It’s a thought, but a longshot. Do you alienate your audience short-term with the promise of a better product tomorrow?
We’re seeing more papers than ever trying to charge for their online content. We’re all in favor of getting paid. But the model won’t be charging for yesterday’s news.
